Evidence-Based Therapist Responsivity to Disruptive Clinical Process

Abstract

Although a historically prominent model of evidence-based practice (EBP) privileges the faithful delivery of single empirically supported treatment (EST) packages, psychotherapy research demonstrates that therapist adherence to an EST is often unrelated to patient outcome. Additionally, perseverative adherence when facing disruptive clinical process can relate to worse outcomes. In contrast, unmanipulated within-case variability in adherence, or the natural incorporation of theoretically “off-brand” interventions into an EST, can associate with more improvement. Further supporting the value of therapist flexibility, treatments that intentionally integrate theory-informed departures (away from the foundational EST) vis-à-vis specific disruptive clinical processes can outperform the standard EST without such departures. Thus, responsively adjusting treatments, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), to patients’ contextualized pathology, characteristics, and momentary interactions with the provider may represent a more empirically well-supported form of EBP. Consistent with these ideas, we present an overview of context-responsive psychotherapy integration (CRPI), an approach to EBP in an if-then key. CRPI frames common factors as typical and potentially disruptive clinical “if” situations that therapists will encounter and to which they “then” need to be responsive beyond strict adherence to any EST. Notably, such departures can be temporary, thereby supporting vs. replacing the primary EST interventions. To illustrate CRPI’s application to practice, we focus on one example of patient resistance to CBT as a contextual process marker and motivational interviewing as a theory- and evidence-informed departure response. We also discuss clinical, cultural, empirical, and training considerations from the CRPI perspective.